First of all let me say that "Jon's" writing style and argumentative nature seems oddly familiar to someone who has been on these forums a long time... not to mention his desire to make a big fat throbbing something out of nothing.

Second, maybe "Jon's" age would help us better understand his assumptions of the market trends back then. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was in my mid-teens in the height of the 16-bit era, and while I would have been fairly impressed with the graphics we are discussing, it certainly wouldn't have been nearly exciting enough to draw my attention away from the developing world or 3d graphics, which, rudimentary as they were by today's standards, added a whole different dimension to the games that couldn't come from anything 2d, no matter how good it looked. You have to remember, looking back on early 3d games can be almost painful now, but looking FORWARD to them back then was incredibly exciting, partially because we didn't have PS4 games to compare them to.

That all being said, even as a self proclaimed conspiracy theorist (as much as I hate the term), I think it's hilarious that "Jon" is trying to inject this "they were hiding the good from us so they could inflict the bad on us" scenario. These are video games, not nuclear weapons.

I grew up on the NES and was in my early teens in the mid 90s. I was extremely excited for 3d as well, but it wasn't until late 1995 that the PS1 came out. But, I can't fathom you guys' assertion that the public was sick of 2d from then until 2006, when we were all of a sudden ready for a new Mario game, which sold only 28 million copies. And then you say, oh, well Nintendo didn't know if there was a market for a 2d Super Mario game starring Mario from 1991-2006, and that's why they didn't release one. Your basically saying they were scared it wouldn't sell well. That's one of the most preposterous statements I've ever heard in my life. Without a doubt, they knew it would sell like hotcakes. And that's the argument you guys are standing behind. LOL.

Now if someone were to say, they wanted to focus on 3d, that would make more sense. But, at the end of the day, and after all the arguing (and personal insults thrown my way), I just want this 2d technology I'm talking about to see the light of day. I still have hope somehow that there could be a proper team to do it for the Jag someday.

It's not about anyone being scared or the public not wanting it, it's just that's where the focus was and the development money went. Really not complicated. They could have made a 2D mario and it would have sold well....but everyone's eyes were on 3D then. Does that mean there was some untapped potential in 2D technology then? Absolutely.....but at least we get to see developers do some cool things with 2D today?

THAT'S one of the most preposterous statements you've ever heard in your life? You don't get out much...

I am really not interested in this discussion as I think its time has passed and we obviously have some amazing looking 2D games out there in the last couple generations that make it seem like a weird proposal to try to resurrect the technology you speak of. I guess I just don't understand what all your fuss is about, and I can't fathom an answer that would make me care any more than I already do, and I think a lot of people would agree with me.

-Rayman Origins=2D and tanked-Rayman Legends=2D and tanked.-New Super Mario Bros U=did nothing to make the Wii U a runaway success.-Sonic 4: sales apparently weren't great enough to warrant a physical release. Also, Sonic's 3D outings eclipsed them, if I recall correctly.Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze: like NSMU, it did little to reverse the fortunes of the Wii U.

Now, the flip side:

-GTA 5: across all platforms, the best selling game in the history of the franchise.-Destiny: the hype surrounding this game was INSANE!-every yearly Call of Duty sells over 10 million copies.

3D gaming, in this day and age, is the rule and 2D gaming is the exception. As much as I hate it, being a diehard fan of 2D, that's the nature of things. Of course New Super Mario DS was made! It was the right game on the right system at the right time! Had that game come out on, say, the GameCube, I doubt that it would have reversed the sales trend. The DS was the right system for NSMB just like the Wii was the perfect system for NSMBWii. If you look at overall sales figures, over the past twenty years, you'll see why developers mainly stick to 3D. Here's an example for you: Majora's Mask 3D. That game, in it's first week, sold almost 900k worldwide! That's insane, especially considering that it sort of stiffed when it came out on the 64! My point? Compare it to the sales of the amazing Link Between Worlds.

I've said for a couple years that Yoshi's Island is my favorite 2D platformer of all time. (A 2D Mario game in 1996?!?! NO WAY. Oh wait, it stars Yoshi so it doesn't count). But I've found my new #2-- Rayman Legends. Played it for the first time on PS4 a month ago and it's insanely challenging and fun. Finished all the levels and got 90 percent of the trophies. That games an instant classic, IMO.

As Banjo said, it didn't do all that well sales-wise. I believe it did turn a profit after being on almost every platform, but Ubisoft may think twice about green lighting another one. Shame if this series dies.

[QUOTE=Jon]Let me correct you guys' mistakes as always. First off, Native wasn't a 4 second demo, it was a playable level. Second, you all claim that all these companies cared about was money and that's why they didn't put out 2d games. Well, if they cared about money, why didn't they come out with a 2d Super Mario game starring Mario from 1991-2006? Every single one has been a top 5 seller for its respective systems. Again, I said I wouldn't bold, but you guys can't seem to answer my questions. And you guys' assertions that no one wanted 2d in 1995 but everyone wanted it in 2006 and that's why it came back (with New Super Mario Bros.) is bogus. If anything, with 3d technology getting better and better over the years, the demand for 2d should be less and less. Again, someone answer the question in bold please.[/QUOTE]

You're great at answering questions and terrible at listening to answers. Worse yet, you seem unable to answer a single question yourself. Let me ask you this: So in your version of reality, Nintendo looked at the gaming landscape in the mid-90's, knew that they would make boatloads of money if they just continued pumping out 2D Mario sequels on the N64, but they walked away from that success and money because they hated 2D that much?? Think about it before you answer. In your reality, Nintendo hates (or hated) 2D gaming-- the very thing that had put them at the top of the industry for 2 consecutive generations-- so much that they would willingly cut into their own profits and guaranteed success to SUPPRESS 2D gaming technology. That sounds rational to you? And it's not you who's ridiculous, it's everyone else?

And why stop at Nintendo and Mario? Aren't there other developers who created 2D games during this time. I mean, Sega created the Saturn to be a pretty advanced 2D gaming system. Because they stayed 2D when everyone else was going 3D that it was a massive success and everyone bought one and the Saturn was a massive financial success, right? In fact, the Saturn was SO successful that Sega doubled down and the Dreamcast was focused on 2D gaming again, right? And the Dreamcast was SO successful that Sega is still making consoles today. Other companies took Sega's lead and the 6th generation was dominated by 2D gaming, yes? Do you know why people keep taking cheap shots at you and assuming you're a teenager? Because of your attitude and complete ignorance of gaming culture and history. I was blown away when you said you grew up during the NES era. It seems if that were true, you wouldn't be approaching these 20 year old topics with such little logic and basing your entire argument on hearsay and conjecture.

Everyone's answered your question about the decline in 2D gaming: people wanted 3D. Critics wanted 3D and criticized 2D games that came out during the late 90s as being stuck in the past. Sales numbers don't lie. They still don't-- yes, there's a welcome resurgence in 2D gaming, but it's mostly due to the retro-vibe. They're downloadable titles for under $20. No one is willing to pay full retail price for a 2D game if "Mario" isn't in the title. Create an alternate reality all you want, but this is the real world.

Okay, I've given the topic some more thought, and I think there is a little something to Jon's theory. I think, though, that the major issue is with the idea that 2D gaming was suppressed (which is, I think, inaccurate language at best). There is also the issue of the technology he is talking about producing "clearer" and "better" images being a matter of opinion. But it is entirely possible that 2D systems and games were still desired, but were ignored by major publishers to the point that generally speaking it now IS difficult to interest someone in paying for a 2D game.

Basically, imagine a world where publishers got scared of producing 2D or one where the siren song of 3D technology in a technology industry was too hard to ignore. You would have a world where not a lot of 2D games were made. Now, fast forward to a generation raised on 3D. Then, give them an insanely popular couple of systems (the DS and Wii, and the GBA before that) and give them 2D games on those. Suddenly, they kind of like it, and it shows. However, give them a few more years and they get 2D games FOR FREE. Now try selling them 2D games again. Only a select few franchises will sell good at full price in 2D. However, for free or cheaper, guess what, they sell again.

It really isn't that hard to believe publishers would talk themselves into being afraid of a trend that wasn't real. Jim Sterling did a really great video on that, which I will link below.

Now, would that mean there was a suppression of 2D. Not really. More of a slight misallocation of development resources.

But whatever the case, despite the 2D failures many of you have brought up, it is pretty likely that today far more people spent far more hours playing 2D games on Facebook, through Steam and gog.com, from Big Fish Games, and on their phone than will play 3D games this year (minus, maybe, flat, grainy Minecraft). It really is likely that 2D is, right now, more popular than it has ever been, and will only continue to increase in popularity.

Developers are reacting to the trend again. And again, judging from how many of them were talking about the death of consoles before this generation (I even believed them) they were close to misallocating resources all over again, and in the opposite direction.

First off, New Super Mario Bros. U (that's a mouthful) is the 3rd best selling Wii U game, and not far behind the top seller, Mario Kart 8. The fact I, there was never proof that 2d experienced a steep decline in popularity, it was just eliminated. There weren't any big budget Contra type games or Shmups since before the PS1. So we don't have enough information. People taking "cheap shots" at me, like JWK mentioned, are doing so without being able to answer my question about why there weren't any console Super Mario games starring Mario from 1991-2006, only theories. How crazy can my theories be if no one can answer them. And the fact that 2d's experiencing a huge resurgence, only when it became widely available again, further strengthens my point. I remember playing Mario Sunshine in 2002 and it had 2d bonus levels, thinking, why isn't there just a whole game like that. Call me whatever you want, just know that you can't answer my questions, only come up with theories that are undermined by 2d's resurgence.